The case of aleo v slb toys is important because

Running head: GROSS NEGLIGENCE, ALEO V. SLB TOYS USA, INC. 1

GROSS NEGLIGENCE, ALEO V. SLB TOYS USA, INC. 2

Gross Negligence, Aleo v. SLB Toys USA, Inc.

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Gross Negligence, Aleo v. SLB Toys USA, Inc.

How the Legal Concept of Aleo v. SLB Toys USA can be applied to a Business Managerial Setting

The legal concept in the case is gross negligence. SLB Toys did not adhere to this concept properly and it resulted in the issue (death of the victim). Therefore, this concept can be applied within the business managerial setting. In order for the management to avoid suits or liabilities related to this legal concept, they need to ensure that their products and services adhere to the entire federal safety standard. For instance, in this case, the management of SLB Toys should have made sure that all the slides they acquired met all the federal and state safety standards applicable to all slides irrespective of materials used by the manufacturer (Maloney, 2013).

Another important thing that should be applied by the management of various organizations is to test their products once they are manufactured and before they are sold to customers. Product testing is among the requirements of the federal regulation (6 C.F.R. §1207.1). For instance, the management of SLB Toys should have introduced a rule where all slides are tested and ensured that they can support about 350 pounds. Also, the slides should have been tested to make sure it can work well in head first sliding (Maloney, 2013).

Moreover, organizations can avoid liabilities attributed to gross negligence through including an explicit instruction as well as a fixed warning label to their products. The instruction manual can guide consumers on appropriate ways of using the products. Additionally, consumers can be warned of things to avoid when a product has a fixed warning label attached to it.

Finally, managers have to ensure that all parties, both inside and outside the organization, playing their required role in the creation of products or components of the products and that they follow all the required steps. This is possible through increased oversight. Even the services of outsources parties should be adequately evaluated or monitored. For instance, negligence on the part of SLB Toys is that it failed to ensure that the hired retail sellers tested the slides conclusively to confirm that they met all the requirements.

An example from Real Life Experiences or Current Events

A current event related to this concept of gross negligence was evident in northwestern Florida, where a jury awarded a judgement of $23 billion in a tobacco case (Robles, 2014). Cynthia Robinson, the widow of Michael Johnson Sr., sued the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a second largest tobacco firm in the United States, for causing the death of her husband. Johnson was a chain smoker, and he died from lung cancer.

During the court ruling, it was found that the firm had knowingly hidden the health hazards its cigarette brought about. This means that there was the element of gross negligence. As a result of this Robinson was awarded $17 million in compensatory damages. Apart from that, the jury also awarded Robinson $23.6 billion due to punitive judgment (Robles, 2014).

How the Rule discussed in the Case has impacted the Industry

From the consumers' perspective, this rule of gross negligence has helped to improve product safety. Retailers and manufacturers are now forced to sell to customers products that are free from defects. Manufacturers have to ensure they eliminate design defects and manufacturing defects, while retailers have to procure adequately made and tested products, and also avoid marketing defects. Marketing defects are evident in the manner in which a commodity is sold. An excellent example of marketing defects is when there is lack of instructions or warnings like in the case of SLB Toys, where the slides did not have warning label or instructions.

On the other hand, the rule also makes retailers and manufacturers to be more responsible when it comes to manufacturing and selling of products. This is the case when it comes to product liability. Manufacturers and retailers have now been forced to be more careful since they know they will be held responsible for their product defects.

In the future, this rule will help ensure the duties of businesses change. The management of organizations can ensure this through adequately monitoring who works for the business as well as their level of expertise or exceptional skills. For instance, a manufacturing company that which recruits licensed, and trained workforce has a higher duty of care to its customers compared to an unskilled defendant. This means that more care will be taken by retailers and manufacturers to prevent harm likely to be suffered by customers.

Positive and Negative effect the Case Law has made in the Industry

The case law has had a positive impact on the industry. This is because it has brought about the concept of reasonable care. The law now requires everyone (for instance, retailers and manufacturers) to have a duty of taking reasonable care. Doing this is essential in avoiding causing damages or injuries. Failure to do this will mean that one will be held civilly liable (Miller, 2015).

Another positive impact of the case law is that organizations can now prevent being held liable for gross negligence by following all the necessary standards and regulations. Currently, all the requirements related to this law are clear. This makes it very easy for retailers and manufacturers to align the production of the products with the requirements, thereby avoiding liabilities. At the moment some retailers and manufacturers ask customers to sign a liability waiver before being allowed to use a product or taking part in a host of some activities. However, even with the presence of a liability waiver, retailers and manufacturers have to ensure that all the necessary requirements are met (Miller, 2015).

The negative effect of the case law is that it sets a precedence, making it possible to sue businesses for negligence. This is an adverse effect on the side of companies since it increases the risk of liabilities attributed to negligence. Companies found guilty of such offense will have to deal with the financial burden related to compensations. The financial burden normally results from lawsuits filed against businesses. Many lawsuits will make businesses less profitable and more difficult. This problem will only be faced by companies when they fail to comply with the required laws and regulations.

In conclusion, there are legal consequences to gross negligence. In most of the claims related to gross negligence, petitioner is awarded punitive damages and compensatory damages. The award amount to a significant amount of cash. Therefore, businesses have to ensure they align with all laws and standards related to the rule.

References

Maloney, C. (2013). $18 Million Punitive Damages Award against Retail Seller of Pool Slide

Constitutional. Retrieved from http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/products-liability/news/_18_million_punitive_damages_award_against_retail_seller_of_pool_slide_constitutional

Miller, J. J. (2015). Gross Negligence, Inherent Risks, Assumption of Risks: Using Waivers to

Protect Fitness Clubs: Editor: Thomas H. Sawyer. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 86(4), 54-56.

Robles, F. (2014). Jury Awards $23.6 Billion in Florida Smoking Case. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/business/jury-awards-23-6-billion-in-Florida-smoking-case.html